Beavah

Yah, I dunno. I sorta remember Peter, Paul, Andrew and all da rest showin' up in togas and sandals. I have to admit, in da modern context that statue does earn quite a guffaw. Back in it's day it was probably fine. Still, I'm with Tampa Turtle. When yeh need a sign to explain da symbolism it's probably because da art doesn't speak for itself. Beavah

No. But it's hard to prove a negative, eh? All I can do is point yeh to da absence of any such policy anywhere in da BSA literature. Your Chartered Organization, of course, can impose additional requirements beyond those of da BSA, so it is still possible that your individual troop may require one of da adults for an outing have IOLS. Beavah

Yah, make it fun, eh! Do somethin' special only for da PLC. Set aside at least half of each day for fun and scoutin', (which can also serve as a skills refresher and idea generator ). Then mix da other things in. Remember, them doin' is better than someone blah blahing at 'em. Yeh can check out some of da stuff on Kudu's site (inquiry.net) or other postings here or other places. B

Yah, smooth move, Mr. President. But then, who can say "No" when a cute little Tiger Cub asks if yeh would like to buy some popcorn? If da President walks away, the story would have been "President snubs first grader". So I give major props to da young salesman for his gumption and his timing! Beavah

Hiya Spiney Norman. Good questions. My first response is "Yah, what everybody else said!" I'll add to da other great comments in just a couple of ways. I think one thing yeh have to seriously consider is whether boys truly identify with their patrol. Yeh are content with patrol "recombining" on campouts, and I understand the rationale. Yeh should be aware that almost all of us Patrol Method advocates would say it's a Very Bad Idea, though, and for this reason: it suggests that patrols aren't meaningful to the boys. In most strong patrol method groups, the boys themselves would resist "recombining". They themselves would rather be a Patrol of 2. "We don't need no steenking BobWhites!" They identify with their patrol. If they aren't really identifyin' with their patrol, then a patrol meeting is just an administrative exercise. Who wants to voluntarily come to an administrative exercise? So I'd suggest yeh think about patrol trips and patrol events, not patrol meetings. Then if there's a meetin' thing to do, they can do it right after da patrol minigolf outing. Think about patrol competitions and patrol independence rather than "recombining". Then there's a reason to come out for da team on the outing, along with social pressure from da other folks to be there. Yeh feel needed. In the end, yeh see, patrol meetings are just one of da trappings of Patrol Method. But yeh can't get to real Patrol Method by "requiring" da kids to go through da trappings. It's like Patrol Yells. If yeh just require each patrol to have a yell, it ain't genuine. When yeh have patrols that really identify as patrols and do things as patrols and compete as patrols, then they'll naturally come up with Patrol Mottos and Yells and Songs without being "required" to do so. And they'd never want to "recombine" with those silly BobWhites, eh? It's Beavahs forever!! One Beavah can take on 8 Foxes without breakin' a sweat! That's real patrol identity. As for high adventure, read and re-read what VeniVidi wrote. I think he's spot on. That's especially true if da high adventure trip is a one-up, like goin' to Boundary Waters if a lad has never done any canoe camping in the troop. The boys don't have any mental map for da activity, and most modern teens are a conservative lot. They only engage cautiously in da things that they aren't certain they're good at, and often then only with some personal encouragement. We adults think in terms of "destination" trips like Boundary Waters, but the lads don't. To build a real high adventure program, your troop should be doin' moderate technical trips of different sorts, where they build up some knowledge and skill and enthusiasm. Then boys can be encouraged to "take it to the next level" once they've had some experience and success. That's not a destination that gets picked that has an activity, eh? That's an activity that gets picked and then yeh go find a destination. That's how it works from a genuine youth-run perspective, eh? Da desire for high adventure comes out of them. It is subtly but significantly different than being "selected" by them from a list of one-up destination options because that's what's expected of da PLC. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... I reckon this needs some context. Now me, I think "right" and "wrong" don't have much to do with "policy." Right and wrong have to do with natural and divine laws, eh? At least in da ethical sense. They're about our relationship with da Great Scoutmaster and our obligation to others and our community. So I can't imagine ever goin' to spend any time findin' a rule or policy myself. That sort of thing only leads people astray, because it makes 'em think that human policies and human rules determine what's right and wrong. And that's just false. At da same time, I don't reckon it's enough for da other person to be doin' wrong, eh? Da question at issue is what's da right and proper choice for me in that circumstance, not whether what they're doin' is right or wrong. Lots of times, da proper choice is not to be a busy-body who goes around tellin' other folks everything that they're doin' wrong. It's bein' a friend to 'em, and not an antagonist. Are there times to speak up? Yah, sure. To prevent imminent harm. If yeh feel it's da right time and place to educate someone, and they might listen. If not speakin' might be taken as an endorsement of their actions. Mostly though, if yeh want to prevent wrongdoin', you're lookin' to change people's hearts, and that can't be done by bein' a pushy, preachy sort. Now, if we're talkin' about right and wrong in a factual matter kind of thing, instead of an ethical thing (like is a uniform required for insurance coverage), then that's a different matter. There I think we all have some obligation to each other to correct ignorance, both to save da person from da embarrassment of spreadin' such a yarn and to spare other folks from bein' misinformed. Lots of folks seem to like quotin' "authorities" in such cases, so if I'm talkin' to one of those, I'll try to speak his/her language and quote authority. By and large, though, I prefer to try to encourage people to think and reason through things themselves, eh? To do their homework. Of course, sometimes folks are engaged in premeditated ignorance, and yeh can't get anywhere with 'em even in a case where there's a clear empirical answer. Then yeh just try to be civil. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... So that would be one of da cases where reportin' to da SE is a bad idea, eagle90. Da proper thing to do in such a case is to call Children's Services yourself, and follow up with a written report to them. First, because it's genuinely helpful if they get reports from more than one source, which might have different information or reflect separate incidents so as to establish a pattern. Second, because by makin' a voluntary direct report to your states child protection agency and no one else, you are protected against claims of slander or libel, and your identity is kept confidential (where da SE and any notes he kept at da scout office could be subpoenaed). This is easy, eh? Any child abuse yeh suspect which occurred outside of Scoutin', yeh go direct to your state's appropriate authorities. Doesn't matter if you're a voluntary or mandatory reporter, just get on da phone. None of this SE nonsense. Beavah

Nah, WasE61, they aren't that clear when yeh dig a bit, because a big chunk of da sexual assault on minors numbers are committed by other minors, eh? Those all fall in da "non-parent" category. Once yeh subtract 'em out, the number of non-parent adults committin' sexual assault is much lower. It might still work out slightly da way yeh suggest, especially because parents tend to abuse girls at a higher rate than boys when compared with more general perpetrators (which might lead one to question da comparative risk of gay males, or just reflect that guys like Sandusky go after kids other than their own). Still, I'm not sure that we want to call (non-sexual) abuse by a parent an OK thing or a lesser thing, especially when it is far more common and leads to at least as much in long term emotional problems as sexual abuse by a stranger. Plus fatalities. Seems to me we should be every bit as willing to protect kids from that as from sexual abuse, eh? So in da grand scheme of things, parents are da worst risk for da welfare of children in this way, which is why CPS agencies and mandatory reportin' were originally put in place. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, not actually a great citation. Yeh need to always dig a bit deeper and not take summary statistics at face value, eh? Most sexual assault of minors is committed by other minors. Once yeh subtract out that group, which falls heavily in da "friends" category, you are left with family members bein' more likely than others. Leastways, that's what I remember and what seems to be confirmed by pullin' da source documents. And of course, since scouters are just a small subset of adults fallin' in da "friends" category, da risk of abuse by a father or other family member is substantially higher than risk of abuse by a scouter. Given that, da tide of suspicion more properly turns toward any parent who carefully limits da contact of his boy with other adults in the community. Who keeps him home, who doesn't allow him to spend time or talk with others without being present, who raises objections to his son ever being away with non-family members who are goin' to be more likely to report on him than close friends and family members. Those are da sort of controlling behaviors that are the mark of a fellow who may be a family member abuser. So these things do rebound on parents like WasE61, eh? Dependin' on da nature of his objections and da behavior of his stepson around him, a good scouter should start payin' attention. At some point, that might rise to da level of needin' to report a good-faith suspicion. And yep, I'd make that report, regardless of any BSA rules. Da challenge is, as da files show, that just havin' suspicion or a credible report ain't enough for either law enforcement or children's services to act in most cases. So none of us should think for a minute that once yeh have dialed da phone, now everything will be OK. In fact, that's extremely unlikely. Beavah

Yah, good for the lads tryin' to up their game, and good for you and da other adults tryin' to support 'em! First, yeh should consider da possibility of renting at least some stuff. A lot of outdoor shops and many college/outdoor clubs will allow yeh to do that relatively inexpensively; yeh can also ask another troop in your area that has such gear if yeh can rent from them. Most of da time gear just sits around, eh? Gettin' it out in da field and gettin' some extra $$ for replacement is a good deal for another troop. In da long run, if yeh go this way, it is better to have your own gear. More economical, more flexible, boys get to learn quicker havin' a stable set of gear, etc. But yeh don't need to necessarily do that for everything to start. As to specific questions: ITEMS THE TROOP WILL PROBABLY BUY STOVES: ($30 each for basic pocket-rocket, going up from there) The ratio of boys-per-stove appears to be about 4:1. AGREE/DISAGREE? Jetboil is limiting because of the proprietary system/fuel Canister fuel stoves are the cheapest and most versatile, but fuel costs are higher. Gas stoves have lower fuel costs and less fuel canister volume to carry, but you need to be very careful with transporting fuel No one has much experience with the volcano/wood-fuel type stoves. Why? I live in da Great White North, eh? So for us, gasoline stoves are da only option because da isobutane stoves just suck when da weather gets below freezing. Transportin' fuel is honestly not a problem. Yeh have a slightly higher level of safety instruction in teachin' kids to operate white gas stoves, but it's well within da capabilities of boy scouts. If yeh live somewhere where it stays above freezin' whenever yeh plan on usin' 'em, da isobutane canister stoves are a bit easier. Keep in mind that they tend to be less stable, so yeh up da risk of scalding burns and havin' da pot of pasta end up on da ground, which is da biggest risk of kids cooking. COOKING GEAR: $$?? Several of the stove manufacturers offer all in one/stackable systems but they are generally geared toward solo backpackers and seem to be more expensive than buying separate cookware. What is the minimal amount/type of cookware needed? 10" Fry pan, 3 qt pot, spoon, spatula, spice kit. One smaller pot as an option, but not usually needed. WATER FILTRATION: $75-100 each The ratio of boys-to-filtration systems is????? Filtering systems vs. steripenseach have advantages and drawbacks. Steripens do not filter sediment/etc. If you were to start from scratch, what's the best choice for a group? Not worth it. Just get some halogen tablets/treatment. Iodine or Aqua Mira (chlorine), one bottle per cook group/patrol for da weekend at $6. If yeh need to filter sediment yeh generally need to find a better water source, or just use a bandana. Da filters da kids will just destroy, eh? You'll have 'em jammed up and contaminated within a day. Steripens work fine and might be a decent long-term solution as they're cheaper in da long run than tablets, but yeh have a higher training load and risk of breakage. TARPS/DINING FLY? What type, etc. Why bother? Yeh have tents to sleep in. It's fine to cook in da rain. On da other hand, as long as da bugs aren't too bad, yeh can sleep (and cook) under flies, as long as you're mindful of ursine issues. All kinds out there. All of 'em need some practice settin' up, but they do teach knot work. ITEMS THE BOYS WILL PROBABLY BUY TENT Right now the boys bring their own tents. Some boys may have smaller tents that they can use but many use large family tents currently. Boys can buddy up, but which buddy bears the cost of the tent? Yah, I reckon you'd want to phase this in. Da other thing is that over time as yeh have wear and tear, it's somewhat nice to have da same tents from da same model year to swap parts on. Two-person backpack tents can be somewhat pricey. BACKPACK No way around the cost of this one and the boys will need to buy one that is best for them. Most boys will need two durin' their life in da troop. One that is kid-sized or small woman size for their first few years, and an adult one after that. Most packs don't "grow" well with the lads. Talk to shops or direct to manufacturer about bulk/group discounts. Lots of parents/families tend to cheat on packs (older person's pack that doesn't fit da boy well, new pack to "grow into", etc.) and that makes boys' first experiences with backpacking absolutely miserable. You'll need to rent or provide a lot of guidance here. SLEEPING BAG For summer backpacking, what can the boys get by with? What is the practicality of using a department-store bag a boy might already have? Summer in what part of da country? Of course last summer, yeh could get by without a sleepin' bag in da entire country below 8000 feet. If it's only summer, then any temperature ratin' will do, and there are advantages to a 40 degree bag. I'd never have a family buy somethin' like that up here, though, because we want it to be one purchase for year-round use. Department store bags are a mess to pack and carry, especially for da younger lads who are da ones most likely to have 'em. Again, it's part of da misery factor which turns 'em off to backpacking. Get a decent, compressible, mummy bag without a cotton liner. Beavah

Yah, it's usually a function of how many drivers yeh need. For Boy Scouting, only 1:10 for aquatics and climbing I think. No other ratios. Practically speakin', this gets subject to some judgment. If you've got three rappels running, yeh likely have a much higher adult:youth ratio for each rappel, because of da nature of the activity. At the same time, yeh might have 50 kids waitin' in line, so overall yeh might have less than 1:10 of adults to all kids present. Yeh certainly don't need 4 adults for a backcountry trip. That's overkill, especially in areas where there are group size limits. Beavah

Yah, I think we each know our own communities, eh? I reckon given how much play this is gettin', it's worth acknowledging it, puttin' it in perspective for folks, and talkin' about what da current situation is. There was no legal reportin' obligation in play for the BSA durin' the time period covered by any of the released files, so yeh can tell folks that sort of claim is just false. Da files were kept confidential because if all yeh have is suspicion, yeh can't very well go and publicly repeat gossip about someone bein' a child molester. This is why most organizations didn't keep files, despite da added risk to kids of not havin' a way to track suspicious folks. As close as I can tell from what has been released in da popular press thus far, in almost all da cases either the police or the parents knew, so blamin' the BSA for inaction seems a bit odd to me. I wonder what da sexual harassment situation was like in newsrooms for the same period? If yeh applied today's sexual harassment law and ethics to da newsrooms of 1945 - 1985, do yeh think da L.A. Times would look very good? Beavah

More like a sad day for da legal profession. Mr. Clark styles himself a crusader, but I'd use a different word. To date in da corpus of da release, I think there is information that might be of some use for research on this stuff, but beyond that I don't see much for da BSA to be embarrassed about organizationally. Yep, sometimes local folks didn't always do what they should. Yep, sometimes there were clerical errors. Close as I can tell though, this is just standard human stuff. Good folks makin' mistakes. Perhaps we should put together a little group to do an investigation of da full release, and give a comprehensive picture instead of cherry-pickin' da worst incidents. Beavah

Yah, that was about da funniest thing I've read in quite a while, Peregrinator! Nice way to break up da moose-and-vol show, though. B

Yah, I'm on da opposite side of this from TwoCubDad, eh? I've sat through way too many of these dang blasted beading ceremonies and cub scout Blue and Gold banquets where the time spent thanking every adult for this or that was double the time spent on recognizing and having fun with da boys. The only adult awards that should ever be presented at a scout event are ones that are freely given by the boys themselves, or at least with their strong blessing and permission, because it's somethin' they want to recognize the adult for. Best beading ceremonies I've seen were when WB course-mates got together late at night after the lads had gone to bed, shared a bit of camaraderie around a campfire, and enjoyed each other's company for a bit. Beavah and a good ol' Beaver too!

AIIEEEEEE! Yah, not da dumb McDonald's franchise thing again, Brewmeister! Children are not hamburgers, and if yeh know anything about franchising agreements, then yeh know that da BSA charter is not a franchising agreement. I don't know where this silly analogy got started. Anyways, to my mind da JTE thing is just a tool. I think like all da previous Quality Unit incarnations, it's designed and used more as a tool for councils and pros than it is for units, and I have qualms about that. It's also true that da metrics are more symptoms of a good program rather than causes of a good program, eh? So if yeh just treat da symptoms by upping the advancement rate or penciling out a budget yeh aren't really helpin' da program at all. Still, as a tool it can be an OK thing to have a conversation around for a unit that is small but stable. In other words, a unit that has some of da necessary ingredients in place but needs a bit of push or goal-setting. For a unit that's larger and successful, I agree that yeh hit a ceiling effect and da thing doesn't necessarily capture a strong unit's style or goals. For a unit that's strugglin', I agree that JTE isn't goin' to help them either, eh? They know their recruitment or outing level or whatnot isn't great, da problem is findin' da people and resources to improve those things. So it's a tool that can be useful, but not for everyone. Don't be too down on it. Use it if it helps, or skip it if it doesn't, or quick-whip your best guess just to help out your district or council team. I think da biggest complaint I get about JTE and its predecessors is how much work it takes for volunteers to fill out for not a lot of benefit. Most units don't make it a focus at all; instead they treat it as an additional hassle at recharter time, when da recharter process is already a hassle. Particularly for bigger units, da hassle of both recharter and JTE is bigger. It seems we could streamline the whole thing quite a bit if da councils filled in most of it, and da UC added most of da rest, and then it became a 15-minute agenda item for a TC meeting unrelated to recharter. Beavah

Implicit in Beavah's reply is the notion that being gay (and being honest about it) is not in keeping with the Oath (i.e. morally straight) and that being gay is somehow a bad example for other scouts and that homosexuality is a choice. (Don't mean to put words in Beavah's mouth...so correct me if I'm wrong). OK, you're wrong. At least about da last part. I don't think sexual preference is a conscious choice. I do believe that sexual conduct is a conscious choice, as is da example yeh set in your personal words and actions for da others around you. As for da rest, it's the BSA's belief that an open homosexual lifestyle is not consistent with da BSA's Oath and Law, and not a good example for youth. I think da BSA gets to decide what it's own Oath means, eh? So then da character question for both da scout and the adult leaders is whether to lie implicitly because they disagree, whether to remain in da organization at all, whether to write lots of letters or whatnot, whether to respect da will of da current majority of charter partners the way we respect da will of da majority in settin' laws in our democracy. All great questions, some of which reflect different levels of maturity and honor in da response. All ways in which a good scouter and mentor can help a boy develop a confidence in his own choices and a respect for da beliefs of others; all ways in which we can teach that good citizens can disagree without gettin' all hyper and emotional. So I vote that yeh teach 'em thoughtfulness, respect, and maturity. Da other stuff is just political noise. Beavah

Yeh ignore da bad advice of non-scouters like Merlyn, and yeh be a supportive friend and mentor to the lad. In my experience boys experiment around and fool around with this stuff. Some of da young fellows who have claimed to be "gay" were doin' it for attention and shock value, and went on to live happy and healthy heterosexual lives, just as many lads have claimed along the way to be "atheists" and gone on to become ministers or rabbis. Kids are still learnin' and growin'. Yeh just be a supportive friend and mentor. Now, at some point I reckon when it comes to advancement, yeh want to encourage a lad to be honest. Da higher da rank, the more yeh expect in terms of bein' honest about whether they can accept da rank with honor, knowin' that they can't truly keep da Oath and Law. That's just part of teachin' character. Yeh handle that as it comes, with patience and prayerfulness. And yep, sometimes yeh reach a point with an older lad where they have become firm in their choices in a way that no longer is a good example to other boys, and in a way that they're no longer open to da mission of the program. Then it's time to for 'em to depart on a new journey, as they've gotten all they can from us. Hopefully, it's done in a way where we can part company as friends. Sometimes, though, teens bein' what they are, they have to rebel a little or a lot in order to cut their apron strings. It's easier to leave home if you're mad at 'em a bit. Just like with our own kids, we recognize that rebellion for what it is, and respond with wisdom and understandin'. Beavah

But, a fellow who keeps violating the policy is exercising poor risk management to the group as a whole. Yah, shelled creature, yeh took this in a different direction, eh? That's fine. I'm not sure quite what yeh mean here. One might argue that a fellow who refuses to teach line & tender rescues for First Class because most competent agencies consider 'em dangerous is violatin' the policy but exercising excellent risk management for da group as a whole. If we're talkin' about YP policies, it's worth notin' that I'm not aware of any evidence that YP policies actually prevent abuse. Definitive evidence would be hard to obtain. Da BSA hasn't published its figures, but from da rate of news reports I don't think da numbers have gone down since we've implemented YP stuff. Especially when yeh consider that da rates of almost all violent crimes have gone down durin' the same period, yeh would need evidence that da BSA rate declined more than what would be accounted for by da societal decline and da decline in membership. What has changed, though, is that we have a more credible legal defense. That legal defense is not substantively affected by out-of-scouting contact or individual judgment calls. What I wonder is I read somewhere that the 3 organizations that made the most settlements were the (1)Catholic Church (2)BSA (3)United Methodist Church. Yah, don't confuse da practice patterns of attorneys and da press with actual risk, eh? Da BSA and da Catholic Church are (somewhat correctly) seen as single, nation-wide organizations, where public schools and sports programs and other churches are seen as local shops. Single large organizations offer deeper pockets along with more cases, eh? Once yeh have established a ground-breaking case, yeh get all kinds of potential for easy-to-settle follow-on cases for more bucks. Heck, yeh might force 'em to release their files, and then yeh can use da files to go solicit more potential plaintiffs! Same deal with da press, eh? Reportin' on a local Methodist church gets yeh a local story. But da Boston Globe reportin' on da Catholic Church in their area gets yeh a national story with legs and lots of revenue, eh? Because folks think of da Catholic Church as bein' one nation-wide organization. And sure as shootin', that attracts other press agencies and other attorneys lookin' to cash in. Do yeh really think da archdiocese of L.A. isn't goin' to settle for a huge judgment rather than avoid da court case after the Boston mess? Even if da legal claims of half da plaintiffs are dubious? It would be foolish, after da case has already been tried in da nationwide press. Da thing that's hard is to separate da actions and words of emotional and self-interested parties from da actual facts about protectin' kids. The BSA and da Catholics have each had their share of bad actors, but these folks are distributed throughout society. Unlike what fred8033 and various plaintiff attorneys may claim, there's no evidence that there's a herd of predators who look to join youth-serving organizations to gain access. There's instead a bunch of folks of that proclivity who drift toward positions in organizations they have a background with. They become priests or ministers because they're religious, scouters because they like the outdoors or were scouts, coaches because they're good at sports, photographers if they like photography. Often enough they become parents. Beavah

Yah, fred8033, perhaps this will help lower your blood pressure a bit, because yeh don't seem to be hearin' it all that well. Neither I nor any of da other folks here disagree with BSA YPT or think that it is a bad idea as institutional policy. We agree with it and support it, in the same manner we would any institutional policy. We'd enforce it and follow it where it applies, we'd follow other rules where it doesn't apply, and in all cases we'd exercise caring and prudent judgment that put kids, not policies, first. Yep, as I have said here repeatedly almost all abuse by scouters happens (or at least gets started) outside of Scouting activities. None by the way on car rides in any case that I am aware of. Mostly these things happen in da same way that Uncle Fred or Neighbor Joe or Fr. Bill or Coach Carl act as perpetrators, eh? As a friend of da child and the family, they are inside da circle of trust and engage in such behaviors with the endorsement of the parents. One need only read da Jerry Sandusky files to know that many of those kids parents encouraged 'em to go spend time with Jerry. Da point being made here is that the answer is not to try to ensure that no adult other than a parent becomes a friend of the child or the family. No institutional policy can override da choices of the parents, and there's nuthin' at all wrong with da choice by a parent that a lad go spend extra time with a trusted teacher, or coach, or minister, or scout leader. 999 times out of a thousand, such a choice by a parent leads to a positive mentoring relationship which has great benefits for the kid. Kids need the involvement of caring adults of all stripes. As da CDC points out in words that yeh can't seem to parse, that more than anything, is what keeps kids healthy and safe. So we're left as adults with an adult-level responsibility that must be discharged in an adult, mature manner. We have to encourage and support da involvement of lots of good people in the lives of children, while calmly and thoughtfully being alert and workin' with each other so that nobody can isolate and take advantage of a lad. Yep, I've been involved with removing scouters from da BSA permanently for things like da private cabin camping trip, one adult and several boys, non-scouting event. At the same time, I've seen lots of single-parent dads do somethin' similar with their son and some of his friends and that's been just fine. This is why these things need to be approached in a mature and thoughtful manner, mindful of signs and policies but not slavishly so. With that in mind, fred8033, your approach would raise my antennas quite a bit, eh? It's fairly high on da "creepy" scale, as you put it, because it suggests to me da slight possibility of a repressed desire on your part. And da result of your approach is that the boys are more isolated from other adults by fred8033's strict enforcement of da policies, eh? All of which makes it more possible for fred8033 to gain trusted access and isolate vulnerable lads. Your stated behavior in fact matches other cases where I have been involved in removin' men from da BSA permanently, eh? Those were worse than the "groomers", as they had a more controlling isolation of boys which relied more on fear, in da same manner in which your arguments here rely on fear. So I reckon we have to be, as the CDC commissioned report suggests, thoughtful about balancing concerns in a mature way. Recognizing that kindness and care for children and the involvement of lots of people in a boy's life is is overall the right approach, while maintaining some alertness to da possibility of the rare bad actor along with a willingness to intervene in such cases. Yah, yah, and some institutional policies to help protect da institution from exposure. Beavah

I think you handled it fairly well. I'd probably sent him off after librarian. Yah, for sure. I reckon I might have sent him off after da Quartermaster comment. "Ah, OK, well, yeh asked me for a suggestion and that was my suggestion. Come back when yeh feel like you're ready to work and we can talk with da SPL about whether he thinks you'd be OK for the job. Otherwise, elections are in 4 months." Yeh don't argue or lecture about this stuff, and yeh don't accommodate it or waste time on it either, eh? Da beauty of the BSA system is that yeh just behave normally and all da consequences and lessons happen naturally. You're not ready to work, then you're not ready for rank. Beavah

Yah, fred8033, to bring things back 'round to da original point, your favorite CDC document echoes my guidance, and says "Your organization should clarify when it is responsible for youth and when caregivers are responsible." Gettin' lads to and from a meeting in every scout unit I know is a situation when the caregivers are responsible, eh? So it's the parent(s) choice who gets to drive Johnny to the meeting, includin' whether it's one-on-one or whether it has to be in a bus with 30 witnesses. BSA guidance doesn't apply outside of Scoutin', or I wouldn't have been able to take my grandson duck huntin' this weekend. Perhaps that's twistin' words, but if so I reckon da vast majority of folks are just fine with me takin' my grandson duck huntin', even though we were drivin' back one-on-one and stoppin' for burgers and ice cream. Yah, sure, and even though one of da things molesters do is be caring and grandfatherly and give kids opportunities and buy 'em burgers and ice cream. It just also happens to be da sort of thing good grandpas do. And lest yeh think it's limited to relatives, there are a lot of lads who've lost dads in Iraq or Afghanistan where their buddies are fulfillin' that dad or grandpa role. For da rest, I reckon we're just approachin' things from different levels of experience. Yeh seem to want everything to be nice, neat, cut and dried policy given from Authority, so right and wrong is defined for yeh in a quote. In fact yeh seem to be traipsin' all over da interwebs lookin' for Authorities to pull out of context quotes from. I understand that impulse. Da problem is that I know lots of people who write regulation and policy, and I've done my share of draftin' laws and regulations and policies. Even written a few quickie solicited reports for groups or agencies like da CDC one that yeh pulled out. So I know from personal experience that we're a pretty fallible lot, eh? I wouldn't want anybody treatin' these sorts of writings as definitions of right or wrong, or pullin' a few sentences that I wrote on a late-night deadline and usin' 'em as gospel. I'd hope that they took da time to inform themselves more deeply, and interpreted what I wrote intelligently and from a broader context. So from da point of view of a fellow who has actually read a couple of da actual journal articles referenced by da CDC piece and who has some level of experience in da area, I don't think I was twistin' any words. I was explainin' what da plain language of da quote actually said and meant. When you understand that da greatest risk of abuse and neglect comes from parents and in-home relatives, yeh appreciate da balance talked about in the quote between isolating kids from caring adults who can recognize and be supportive outside da family, and protecting 'em from potential non-parent abusers. Is da possibility that grandpa will abuse the lad on the car ride home from huntin' what's important, or da possibility that havin' grandpa to talk to on the car ride home will let him share his concerns about mom's brother Fred, or about friends usin' drugs at school and askin' him to join in? And yeh know, when yeh have actual experience with da fallibility of social services and law enforcement, and you've known dozens of SE's and their level of experience personally, yeh better appreciate that these things aren't simple enough to be answered simplistically. Beavah

Yah, fred8033, this is a different thread than about driving, eh? Let's keep that discussion over in da other thread. Unresponsive bystanders is also an interestin' issue, which you could spin off a different thread about which might be interestin'. I'm very familiar with that literature, but it's quite different than what we're talkin' about here. Second Class, da point of this thread in Issues & Politics was to highlight and discuss poor policy or decision making arising from a well known form of judgment bias, which overweights direct evidence in decision-making rather than considerin' that decisions are in effect a choice between possibilities. By goin' with evidence of effect (90% of molesters eventually are seen being alone with a kid), most people don't make da right choice in terms of understandin' risk (the chance that someone who is seen being alone with a kid is actually a molester is much less than 1%), and therefore don't make da most rational personal or policy choices. My grandfather was one of those, eh? He lived through the Great Depression and learned that banks and da market were risky (they are, with ample evidence!). Yet da long-term risk of banks compared with other choices like keepin' money in a safe at home are actually small, so his personal financial choices, based on good evidence, were poor. They didn't consider Type II error. I'm seein' it a lot these days given that it's politics season, and da thread this was spun off of was an interestin' form of it from a scouting "policy" perspective. So it's just an old furry critter sharin' thoughts and reflections for discussion, nothing more. My small way of tryin' to make up for da folks on both sides of the aisle who like to ignore science or such. Beavah

It's more than a claim. Nah, it's just a claim until yeh provide reasoning and evidence. In fact it's a somewhat mean-spirited claim to make about anyone, eh? Especially someone involved in Scoutin' who cares about kids. Now, let's look at da purported evidence from your last post. First, we have a quote from some Canadian attorney who makes his living off of plaintiff lawsuits claimin' that ... plaintiff lawsuits to hold people accountable are a good thing. Shocked I am! That's advocacy, not evidence. Remember when interviews with cigarette manufacturers claimed cigarettes were a good thing? Next, we have a quote from a CDC document which makes my case, rather than yours. Did yeh actually read the document? It doesn't even advocate no one-on-one, eh? In fact it suggests that if da mission of da organization involves mentoring youth (which scouting certainly does), one-on-one is necessary and should be balanced by other safeguards like stricter screening. I've been makin' that point for years. Da quote you provide also perfectly matches my position, eh? Molesters mimic many of da behaviors of the sorts of adults that kids need in their life - the adults we want 'em to have contact with. Da dynamics which may "ultimately protect against child sexual abuse" includin' havin' lots of caring adults involved in a child's life so as to make kids secure, confident, and well-supported also mean that there are openings to abusive behaviors. In other words, if we focus on policies which have da effect of reducing access and contact for fear of abusive behaviors, it leaves children who are "emotionally insecure, needy, and unsupported [who] may be more vulnerable to the attentions of offenders." By contrast, "promoting close and caring relationships between youth and adults, organizations can help youth feel supported and loved and thus reduce their risk of child sexual abuse." Yah, that is my point exactly. It's da presence and support of lots of caring adults in kids' lives that keeps 'em safe, not "policy." And like da Bayesian statistics case I illustrated in da spin-off thread, yeh can do real harm usin' evidence-based approaches to respond to small populations of perpetrators if yeh don't take into account how those approaches' "false positives" affect da larger population of good people. One of da cases of child sexual abuse that I'm familiar with was in fact discovered when a scouter drove a lad home alone, and noticed the lad's behavior as they approached the house. Bein' alone with da scouter gave the boy the space to open up and eventually led to the arrest of the mom's boyfriend for sexual battery against a minor. Boys don't talk about these things when standin' around in a two-deep, no one-on-one group, eh? They talk about 'em one-on-one in private with an adult that they trust. If by policy and fear we isolate kids from da many, many genuinely caring adults out there, we leave 'em more vulnerable to da perpetrators, eh? And trust me, no "policy" ever kept a perpetrator from doin' harm. Da real challenge here, though, is da balance between institutional protection and actually protectin' kids. Those aren't the same thing. Both are necessary, but da policy approaches as a whole are mostly focused on institutional protection, not children. So when we look at such policies in terms of kids, there's a mismatch. I fully admit that within da field I'm an outlier, eh? I think da best institutional protection is not to focus on institutional protection, but to focus on doin' what's right for kids. Bake a great cake and yeh won't need lots of frosting to try to cover it up. Beavah

Is there any number in there that you didn't just make up? I mean, you could be right, you could be wrong. But you don't know. All of 'em are relatively conservative estimates based on da current data, eh? But it doesn't matter. Yeh can fill in almost any numbers and da math still works the same. What I'm pointin' out is a well-known and well-researched reasoning bias which applies across many fields. Look up Bayesian statistics with respect to da medical field, on things like da way 85% of physicians overweight positive mammogram results. We humans tend not to think in terms of Type II error, da false positives. We tend to make judgments simply on da basis of the evidence for a proposition, instead of balancing da positive evidence with the likelihood of being wrong in terms of generatin' false positives. This bias makes for profoundly poor decisions in favor of "doing something" for specific small-population problems without considerin' da unintended consequences for da large population. We're willin' to torture folks or compromise civil liberties over da very small risk of terrorism without considerin' how many ordinary folks will be harmed by "false positive" responses. We're willin' to prohibit laser tag and paintball over da extremely small risk of (something?) without considerin' what da impact of the loss of popular activities is on a very large population. There's real evidence that bicycle helmets reduce da (already very low) risk of minor head injuries in individual cases. As we learned in a recent NYTimes article, however, imposin' a helmet requirement on everyone to reduce that small risk also dramatically reduces the amount of bicycle riding, which in the end increases da risk of all sorts of injuries because drivers become less used to cyclists and more likely to hit da helmeted ones that remain, and there's less development of cycling infrastructure. On and on, eh? This isn't unique to YP stuff, it's a general human reasoning bias. IMO, it's exacerbated in da political and policy world, because policy is more apt to be generated by "pointing with alarm" and appealin' to emotion, in da way fred8033 does in da previous thread. That amplifies da bias. Beavah